Vann & Sheridan Attorneys at Law

Location May Make A Difference

July 26, 2011

Filed under: Creditor's Rights — jrvann @ 9:00 am

James R. Vann

We have all heard the phrase “location, location, location”.  Well, according to a July 18, 2011 article in the Wall Street Journal the location of your pending lawsuit could make a difference in the outcome of consumer debt collections. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303365804576433763597389214.html

 

Consumer debt is different from commercial debt but many of the same type issues arise.  Most of our cases are commercial or business debt recovery where we represent the business creditor.

 

We have found most Judges in North Carolina are fairly consistent in their rulings in applying the law.  It has been our experience that Judges throughout do their very best to apply the law to each case as they understand the facts.  Judges are individuals who have been shaped by life experiences and circumstances which could have an impact on how they perceive the facts of each case.

 

Selecting where you file your case may have an impact on your case due to many circumstances.  Such circumstances may include travel expenses, whether you litigate your issue in your jurisdiction or the defendant’s, the court of jurisdiction and so on.

 

These are helpful ideas to discuss with your counsel.  If you have questions, please feel free to contact us.

North Carolina Allows Reciprocal Attorneys’ Fees Provisions in Business Contracts

July 18, 2011

Filed under: Litigation — rprosser @ 9:25 am

Richard A. Prosser

On June 27, 2011, Governor Perdue signed into law Senate Bill 414 making reciprocal attorneys’ fees provisions enforceable in business contracts. This is a significant change of law in North Carolina in that businesses can now contractually shift the burden of attorneys’ fees to the other side if forced to litigate their disputes.


Under the so-called “American rule,” the general rule in the United States is that each side pays their own way in civil cases. This is in contrast to other countries where the losing party is required to pay the prevailing parties’ fees. This default allocation, however, can be modified by statute to allow for recovery of attorneys’ fees in certain contexts. The enactment of Senate Bill 414 (codified as N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-21.6) effects such a modification, allowing businesses to contract for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees.


The scope of the new law is limited to provisions in written contracts between businesses. “Business contracts” are defined as contracts entered primarily for business or commercial purposes. Consumer contracts, employment contracts and contracts with the government are specifically excluded.


Notably, there is no limitation on the amount of fees recoverable, except that the amount cannot exceed the amount in controversy between the parties and must be “reasonable” in light of certain criteria. This is a departure from other statutes that cap recovery at a specified percentage of the amount at issue. There is also no automatic trigger for reimbursement under the new law, meaning the parties are free to define the conditions that trigger availability of attorneys’ fees.  The only requirement is that the terms of the provision are reciprocal and applicable to all parties.


The new law takes effect October 1, 2011 and applies to business contracts entered on or after that date. Businesses should consider whether a reciprocal attorneys’ provision is something to include in their contracts and also be on the look out for these provisions in contracts from other parties.

Commercial Real Estate Brokers Given Chapter 44A Lien Rights

July 11, 2011

Filed under: Construction Law — cloughridge @ 7:30 am

Cody R. Loughridge

On June 17, 2011, Governor Beverly E. Purdue signed into law the “Commercial Real Estate Broker Lien Act” which bestowed upon commercial real estate brokers the ability to file liens on commercial real estate in the amount that the broker is due under a written agreement for broker services, signed by the owner or the owner’s agent.  The Commercial Real Estate Broker Lien Act, which began as House Bill 174 and was filed on February 23, 2011, is the result of the NC Association of REALTORS, whose efforts date back to 1997.

According to the Act, the lien rights of the commercial real estate broker do not vest until the broker has performed his\her obligations under the written agreement with the owner, which must clearly establish the broker’s duties to the owner, and the written agreement must set forth the conditions upon which the compensation shall be earned and the amount of such compensation.  In order for a broker’s lien to attach to the commercial real estate, the broker\claimant must timely file a notice of lien after the broker has conducted his\her obligations, but before the conveyance or transfer of the commercial real estate, and within 90 days of date on which the payment is due to the broker.  The notice of lien shall be effective as a lien against the owner’s interest in the commercial real estate only to the extent funds are owed to the owner by the transferee\purchaser of the commercial real estate.  Interestingly, any liens claimed by a commercial broker pursuant to the Commercial Real Estate Broker Lien Act are deemed to be subordinate to liens claimed by Contractors\Subcontractors under Part 1 and Part 2 of Chapter 44A.

For more information about North Carolina Lien Law, or the Commercial Real Estate Broker Lien Act specifically, please feel free to contact our office.

Court Fee Changes

July 4, 2011

Filed under: Litigation — nhannah @ 8:00 am

Nan E. Hannah

In an effort to close the revenue gap in the state budget without raising taxes, the General Assembly increased court fees with the new fees becoming effective July 1, 2011.  The funds generated by the increased fees will, for the most part, revert to the General Fund, though a small portion of the fee increase for District Court filings will be used to fund Legal Aid of North Carolina.

 

The changes include an increase for the filing of Complaints with Small Claims increasing to $96.00, District Court $150.00, and Superior Court $200.00.

 

In addition to these increases, there are new fees.  If an Answer includes a counterclaim or crossclaim, the defendant will have to pay the same fee as would apply to filing a Complaint for the applicable court.  If it becomes necessary to obtain either a endorsement of an existing summons or an Alias and Pluries summons, there will be a $15.00 fee for issuance of the summons.  And, every motion filed will require a $20.00 filing fee.  There is some question as to whether the legislature intended the motion fee to apply only to motions requiring a hearing, or whether it applies to all motions, including extensions of time.  For now, the Clerk’s Office is applying the fee to all motions pursuant to the language of the final budget bill which has been ratified.

If you have questions about these changes, please contact our office.

 
 
 

The information contained on our website, video blogs, newsletters or blogs is provided as general information as a public service. Neither the presentation of this information or the use of this information creates an attorney-client relationship with the firm or any of the attorneys at Vann & Sheridan, LLP. The information provided in the website, blogs, video blogs and newsletters are based upon general information for North Carolina law.


The information contained in this website, video blogs, newsletters or blogs is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship and is therefore not legal advice. Legal advice should be tailored to the specific situation and fact pattern of each case, thus, nothing provided herein should be used as legal advice given the general nature of this information. Please note that Vann & Sheridan, LLP and Attorneys are unable to provide legal advice via email for people or companies who are not established clients of Vann & Sheridan Attorneys at Law. Sending us details of your legal issue(s) via email does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.